April 2013 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    Here are some more words for Karen (I’m keeping these comments short because I know she has reading comprehension issues).

    Regional weather
    Regional weather
    Regional weather

    (Apologies to those with normal reading comprehension).

  2. #2 Karen
    April 26, 2013

    BBd don’t you talk to me about your “Polar vortex” you sicko…….

    Look what poor Sou had to contend with.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/the-mens-playground.html

  3. #3 Wow
    April 26, 2013

    No, nobody would remember that since it never happened, but rewriting history is all part of the denier toolbox.

  4. #4 Karen
    April 26, 2013

    April Yields Snow, Cold Records
    Canada

    995 daily snowfall records have been broken during the month so far

    http://weather.aol.com/2013/04/24/winters-last-gasp-april-yields-snow-cold-records/

    Oh deary me, sigh, where has the CO2 gone ?

  5. #5 Karen
    April 26, 2013

    More evidence of a failed CO2 hypothesis

    Cold weather delays sturgeon spawning in Minnesota, Wisconsin

    http://www.twincities.com/outdoors/ci_23095962/cold-weather-delays-sturgeon-spawning-minnesota-wisconsin

  6. #6 Wow
    April 26, 2013

    And Australia holds far more hot records for the recent six weeks, for example.

    Apparently you don’t know what the difference between weather and climate is, but Olap isn’t here to deride you for it.

  7. #7 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    FFS Karen

    Are you blind?

    since you are waving temperature records around, let’s look at the bigger picture. The contiguous US is less that 2% of the Earth’s surface area. This is the frequency increase of extreme summer (JJA) hot events (NH, land) 1951 – 2011. Click this link and look at the graph Karen!

    Source: Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice, Hansen, Sato, Ruedy (2012), which states (now read the words, Karen!):

    “Climate dice,” describing the chance of unusually warm or cool seasons, have become more and more “loaded” in the past 30 y, coincident with rapid global warming. The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased. An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (3σ) warmer than the climatology of the 1951–1980 base period. This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth’s surface during the base period, now typically covers about 10% of the land area. It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small. We discuss practical implications of this substantial, growing, climate change.

    Did you get that, Karen? If not, go back to the beginning and read it all again until you have understood it!

  8. #8 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    # 1

    Stop your stupid, childish denialist yatter and read the words.

    Disrupted polar vortex = cold NH mid-latitude weather.

    Regional weather ≠ global climate.

    Get it yet?

  9. #9 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    Ye gods Teh Stupid is a terrifying thing to behold, sometimes.

  10. #10 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    As an antidote to Karen’s imbecilic wittering, here’s an interesting snippet from a couple of weeks back:

    a href=”http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/News-and-Events/Media-Releases/Scientists-find-mysterious-giant-pockmarks-on-chatham-rise-02-04-2013″>Scientists find mysterious giant pockmarks on Chatham Rise

    Yup – giant, city-sized craters in the seabed off the New Zealand coast, east of Christchurch; the signature of massive methane release.

    It’s not yet clear when this occurred but I would hazard a bet that it could have been during the last deglacial phase.

    Much-loved paleoclimatologist Jeremy Shakun has done more to wind up the denialati than co-author with Marcott. He also put a fatal bullet into the “CO2-lags-warming” meme last year with Shakun et al. (2012), a seminal analysis of the mechanisms operating during the last deglacial.

    In summary:

    - NH summer insolation increases from ~ 21.5ka

    - By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase causes sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC

    - NH *cools* as equatorial -> poleward heat transport stops

    - With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must

    - Deep water warming in SH causes release of carbon from ocean sediments. This strongly positive feedback globalises and amplifies the warming

    - NH melt resumes, fully engaging strongly positive ice albedo feedback

    - Deglaciation accelerates until largely complete by ~11.5ka. Holocene interglacial begins

    There’s an informative discussion of S12 by Chris Colose at RC which provides the detail. Recommended.

    (With apologies to those who’ve heard all this before).

  11. #11 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    Eh, I’ve had a *terrible* run of html snafus recently. The first link again:

    Scientists find mysterious giant pockmarks on Chatham Rise

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    April 26, 2013

    “Cold weather delays sturgeon spawning in Minnesota, Wisconsin”

    Then this: “Oh deary me, sigh, where has the CO2 gone ?”

    Note the operative word. WEATHER.

    Karen is profoundly ignorant – we all know that. But how many times does he/she/it have to be told about the difference between a short-term non-linear stochastic event and a longer term deterministic trend? Where on Earth is his/her/its understanding of scale? SCALE! I repeat, SCALE. Karen assumes – like Duffer – that every year must, in their kindergarten level understanding of climate and weather, be warmer than the one that proceeded it because atmospheric concentrations of C02 are increasing linearly. Every temperature data point at the yearly scale must, in their ignoramuses view, higher than the previous one. Why else would he/she/it write such utter piffle time and time and time again?

    What it shows is that deniers like Karen have heads made of brick. They don’t understand basic science, cannot understand the dynamics of scale and consistently resort to simpleton arguments that real scientists would ignore. I am a population ecologist and I am very well aware of the importance of scales and hierarchies in elucidating mechanisms and functions. I know that, as the temporal or spatial scale is reduced, then properties become more difficult to predict; only at appropriate scales can we make verifiable predictions. Its the same with climate. What Karen’s comments show is that he/she/it has not even a basic grounding in science. He/she/it is corrected over and over again and yet in spite of this comes back with the same vacuous arguments over and over again. Either he/she/it is willfully ignorant, or else he/she/it couldn’t care less about sound science and is using ti to camouflage his/her/its personal political beliefs. My guess is that both factors are involved.

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    April 26, 2013

    BBD, you are beating your head against a wall. If Karen was a student of mine he/she/it would be booted out of the class, or be given a BIG fail. Karen is not interested in science because he/she/it repeatedly makes the same elementary and embarrassing gaffes. Karen won’t listen, no matter how many times his/her/its garbage is debunked.

    The word TROLL is a completely accurate description of people like our intellectually challenged Karen.

  14. #14 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    Jeff Harvey

    What is fascinating is the homogeneity of the denialist mind. From the barely literate to the Bradley, the song remains the same.

  15. #15 chek
    April 26, 2013

    :What is fascinating is the homogeneity of the denialist mind.

    A well proven phenomena, even when diametrically opposed!
    Witness all those lengthy, oh-God-will-they-never-end ding-dongs between Karen ‘ice age now’ Spots and “Brad” ”warming, but very, very low sensitivity’ “Keyes” – that have never, and will never happen..

  16. #16 chek
    April 26, 2013

    ..and yes, I am aware phenomena is a plural – but there are two of them, even if they have a singular purpose.

  17. #17 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    e pluribus unum

    ;-)

  18. #18 FrankD
    April 27, 2013

    Karen @85 on previous page thinks that slightly cool and extremely dry March in the US proves we are entering an ice age? (Well thats what she seems to think, if she’s linking to “Ice Age Now”.

    Of course, Karen’s demonstrated inability to tell Celsius from Fahrenheit deprecates the merits of her weather reporting, but hey, like the Honey Badger, Karen just don’t care! .

    Better trolls, please.

  19. #19 Sou
    April 27, 2013

    Someone on WUWT wonders ‘where have all the ‘warmists’ gone’ :D

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/long-time-passing.html

  20. #20 bill
    April 27, 2013

    Hey Jeff, Brunning knows polar bears can’t be in trouble because he’s seen one in Taronga Zoo…

  21. #21 Sou
    April 27, 2013

    Bill, I saw men walking on the moon. That means we won’t have any trouble living on the moon once earth gets too crowded or hot.

    People enjoy scuba diving, so I guess we won’t have to relocate coastal cities. The city folk can all live under water after the seas rise.

  22. #22 bill
    April 27, 2013

    I’ve been in a Sauna, therefore all this talk of potential dangers in the predicted spread of torrid zones is nonsense!

    And that’s really the level of ‘understanding’ we’re dealing with here.

    A lot of Denial resembles a species of ASD where the sufferer simply cannot parse complex interdependencies, is vaguely but deeply troubled by a sense that this may actually result from a lack on their own part, and hence they must reflexively dismiss all such complexities contemptuously and out of hand.

    Indeed, I’d argue that we’ve seen that this is, indeed, what all these people have in common, be they bona-fide mouthbreathers or over-educated sociopaths.

  23. #23 Turboblocke
    April 27, 2013

    James Hansen has been awarded the Ridenhour Courage Prize: http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_courage_2013.html

  24. #24 BBD
    April 27, 2013

    Good.

  25. #25 Chris O'Neill
    April 28, 2013

    Another day, another record. Melbourne just recorded its highest minimum for the 28th of April on record (except possibly since 1997). The last time a record low minimum for a date happened was the 22nd April 1992.

  26. #26 Betula
    April 28, 2013
  27. #27 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    April 28, 2013

    Oh bugger. Betula’s back. Same garbage, different sock.

  28. #28 JohnL
    April 28, 2013

    One certainly must be clueless to postnanything from Goddard.

  29. #29 Sou
    April 28, 2013

    Did you know that wood is a fossil fuel? And do you know how fire was invented/created? A: by burning wood!

    Plus a Hansen interview;
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/hotwhopper-of-day-wood-is-fossil-fuel.html

  30. #30 bill
    April 28, 2013

    Der Speigel – Switzerland becomes a ‘land of lakes’ as its glaciers melt.

  31. #31 bill
    April 28, 2013

    Sou, Hansen is definitely getting to be a seasoned media performer now; unflappable but punchy!

    From this side of the Pacific ‘Neanderthal’ seems a pretty apt description of the Harper Govt. in this matter (though the comparison is doubtlessly unfair to actual historical Neanderthals and any putative descendents!)

    (Do wish people wouldn’t pronounce it as ‘thal’ rather than the original ‘tal’ since it’s German and all, but, like most pedantry, that’s doubtlessly a losing battle…)

  32. #32 Wow
    April 28, 2013

    “Second coldest start to Spring in U.S. History..”

    So you’re saying that it’s warmer now than it was before?

    Fair enough.

  33. #33 Sou
    April 28, 2013

    Bill, I agree. The interviewer had to push Hansen about four times to before he could get a single word to snag for the headline (Neanderthal). Hansen’s manner is nicely understated but firm. He uses words well.

    Deniers see Hansen as exaggerating or worse, but they have nothing to base that on except their own “personal incredulity”. Hansen is far from being “hysterical” or “raving” in his manner or what he says, contrary to what the fake skeptics say about him.

  34. #34 bill
    April 28, 2013

    Ooh, lookie: more hockey sticks.

    But, oh. yeah, you cretins have ‘the second coldest start to Spring in US History’, don’t you? That’s a bit like being the 3rd best Bassoon player in Luxembourg, isn’t it? Anything interesting happen in the US weatherwise for the whole of last frickin’ year, fer chrissakes?

    How do you manage to drag your ridiculous selves through your sorry little lives, that’s what I want to know.

  35. #35 BBD
    April 28, 2013

    # 26 Betula

    Read the words.

  36. #36 BBD
    April 28, 2013

    bill # 31

    Agreed wrt Neanderthal! You are not alone… but probably correct that this is another losing battle.

  37. #37 Betula
    April 28, 2013

    BBD @35

    Sounds like you’re starting to unravel….it’s just a matter of time.

  38. #38 BBD
    April 28, 2013

    # 37

    In your dreams. Try venturing a science-based argument and we will see who unravels first.

    Read the words.

  39. #39 BBD
    April 28, 2013

    On Socks:

    Is there a consensus :-) on the taxonomy? A brief summary by a veteran would be helpful to me as a newcomer here.

  40. #40 Jeff Harvey
    April 28, 2013

    BBD,

    Ignore Betula. He should be called Petulant. He runs a tree pruning business somewhere in the NE USA and forever tries to give the impression that he is some kind of environmental expert.

    He isn’t.

    Moreover, after all of the lambasting Karen has gone through over her inability to understand scale, Petulant immediately posts in here showing that he also has a dumbed-down understanding of it. Early spring WEATHER this year in the USA? Pu-lease. He needed to get this in because it is warming up rapidly in most of the lower 48 states anyway, temperatures in many places expected to be well above normal. But that isn’t the point. The point is that short-term weather events in no way signify that AGW is not happening. Well, with the simpleton exception of the denier mindset, that is.

  41. #41 Lionel A
    April 28, 2013

    Sounds like you’re starting to unravel….it’s just a matter of time.

    You are opining from personal experience of course.

  42. #42 Betula
    April 28, 2013

    Delusional Harvey @ 40 states…

    “The point is that short-term weather events in no way signify that AGW is not happening”

    Yet, Jeff believes short term weather events do signify that weather events are happening.

    So which is it Harvey you tool?

    Here’s a comment from Jeff about his Algonquin trip:

    Jeff: “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand. It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night.

    And yes, this is same trip his partner Mark experienced frostbite. Two tools in the toolbox…..

    http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137

  43. #43 BBD
    April 28, 2013

    Betula.

    You are wittering.

    Forcings vs GAT.

    Early days.

    And you still need to read the words and say something substantive.

  44. #44 Wow
    April 28, 2013

    “Yet, Jeff believes short term weather events do signify that weather events are happening.”

    Wrong.

    But then that’s your ground state, isn’t it, betty.

  45. #45 Craig Thomas
    April 29, 2013

    This time last year, Betula and other credulous fools of his ilk were parroting the “Arctic Sea Ice Recovery” that was being advertised by that serially-wrong ex-weatherman climate-change-denier Anthony Watts on his crank blog.

    One year on, it’s good to assess exactly how this “recovery” has panned out:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    So, how does it feel to be wrong again, Betula?

  46. #46 Craig Thomas
    April 29, 2013

    Sorry, that should have read,
    “…serially-wrong ex-weatherman climate-change-denier Anthony Watts on his crank blog, WUWT

  47. #47 bill
    April 29, 2013

    And lookee here, Betty…

  48. #48 BBD
    April 29, 2013

    And all as if paleoclimate never happened and physics operates according to our beliefs, ushering in an age of magic.

  49. #49 Sou
    April 29, 2013

    OMG – Tony’s a complete nutter – now he’s promoting whacky paranoid conspiracies of the Lysenko kind.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/anthony-watts-has-gone-lysenko.html

    What a fruitcake.

  50. #50 Bernard J.
    April 29, 2013

    BBD.

    Betula hasn’t noticeably puppeteered socks, although his logic and understanding are sadly lacking.

    Karen on the other hand used to post as ‘Sunspot’ until he was confined to an eponymous garbage thread. When he realised that Tim was too preoccupied by mundane matters to police the ban Spotty escaped his cage and posted as ‘Mack’ and as ‘Karen’, and I suspect that there may have been one or two other socks also. The amusing thing about KarenMackSunspot is that he had some very queer grammatical, formatting and usage tells, in addition to sock posting times that coincided outrageously, but he has steadfastly refused to admit his multiplied personalities. It took repeated pointings-out to induce KMS to tidy up the worst of his deficiencies, but his semi-literacy is still strongly in evidence.

    Way back in the beginning of the Jonas infestation there were a few socks that popped up, but most of them evaporated when several of us called it. They were all highly supportive of Jonas, which leads one to wonder if there was a connection.

  51. #51 Sou
    April 29, 2013

    Oops – had to update my article. Anthony’s lost it completely. He’s posted two nutty conspiracy theories in one day – Lysenko plus recursive fury! Watt a nutter.

  52. #52 bill
    April 29, 2013

    That’s an appallingly toxic piece from Willard Anthony, even by his already low standards.

    Even when he’s forced to concede that the move to Bristol has nothing – by which we mean nothing whatsoever – to do with any of their complaints to UWA, he still manages to spin off on this note:

    So while his move may cool the complaints raised at UWA, it seems that he’s simply “following the money”.

    (Gee, Willard, what was all that stuff that came up about you in the Heartland papers again?)

    Bona-fide academic – that’s one who actually, um, completed his studies – makes a long in-train move to a more prestigious institution (sorry, UWA!); what a surprise!

  53. #53 Craig Thomas
    April 29, 2013

    Not to mention that anybody moving from Australia to the UK at the moment is almost certainly taking a pay cut.

    I’d be *very* lucky to get 70% of my current salary were I to move over there now.

    A colleague of mine recently moved over there for 50%.

    In other words, nobody competent at basic research and maths would claim that Lewandowsky is “following the money”.

    But then – nobody has accused the person who runs the crank blog, WUWT of being competent.

  54. #54 Craig Thomas
    April 29, 2013

    It’s a cack to witness the panicked response by deniers to the reality of global warming in the form of sea level rise:

    http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1462661/poll-lake-houses-demolition-plan/?cs=305

    Personally, I don’t believe any public monies should be spent on defending individual homes: individuals should be personally responsible for their choice to buy low-lying land.

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    April 29, 2013

    Those loudly touting some sort of Arctic sea ice recovery during the recent NH winter presumably were hoping to direct their audience’s attention away from Arctic sea ice volume (e.g. here).

    Meanwhile, as pointed out at Sou’s blog the Heartland Institute has manufactured yet another piece of pap for Forbes. Haven’t we seen most of these particular conspiracy theories before? I mean, not only Lyseknoism but the Oregon Petition, the NIPCC and the rest of the usual suspects?

    And isn’t it just ironic that the Heartland Institute is accusing climate science of Soviet-style Lysenkoism – whilst producing the kind of misleading propaganda that the Soviets produced in support of official Soviet policy? Does he think no-one will notice his projection? Or does he just not care?

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    April 29, 2013

    Also, note that the Heartland Institute writer has ONLY “called out” by himself, thus highlighting his attempts to defend his piece in contrast to relevant criticisms.

  57. #57 Craig Thomas
    April 29, 2013

    Lotharsson – so ice volume has recovered to last year’s levels then?

    Good-o! Global warming is obviously a hoax!

    On a slightly different note, I reckon this summer is going to be a good one – what are the bookies offering, I wonder?
    Is it Tamino who runs a book each year?

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    April 29, 2013

    For those with an interest, it’s worth expanding the full set of comments on that Forbes article so that you can see what the author doesn’t care to highlight, and see the author’s responses in context.

    He’s dishonest, disingenuous, projecting like mad and ideating rather conspiratorially, even after a bunch of commenters point out blatant errors.

  59. #59 Jeff Harvey
    April 29, 2013

    Sad to see our tree-pruner is back with his usual ad homs. I’d like to inform him that I recently gave a lecture in which I discussed the effects of climate warming on biomes, and especially at boundaries between different biomes. This is of course an important area of research in ecology and is getting more attention, given that biomes are characterized by their own above-ground and soil biota. How they will rapidly shift at transition zones is an interesting question.

    But perhaps not for tree pruners, though.

    Betual clearly has not kept up with Karen’s inane posts, otherwise he would have refrained from making a complete arse of himself by suggesting that one month of cool weather in the United States somehow negates a huge volume of empirical evidence that supports AGW. He would also have learned that data sets do not have to show yearly increases, as these time scales are too short to elucidate trends due to stochasicity at the time scale concerned. Only when longer term data sets are views do we see significant trends, as one would expect at the scales we are discussing.

    Scale, as usual, is left out of Betula’s arguments, as it is from just about every denier who write in here. They clearly don’t understand it or its relevance here. That’s why the lot of them are an army of idiots. And that is being kind.

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    April 29, 2013

    And the HI guy at Forbes claims that Lindzen cited Miskolczi’s “paper” in support of Lindzen’s position.

    That would be quite something if verified.

  61. #61 bill
    April 29, 2013

    Reading the ridiculous comments about Lewandowsky – and I’ll pause, yet again, to point out that while his original ‘Moon Landing’ paper certainly seemed a little-less-than-overwhelming to many, the Denier reaction has vindicated it to the nth degree, an irony that they simply cannot recognise (see the thread!) – it’s clear that what they really despise, ironically, is success.

    Yep, what all these Foaming Friends of the Free Market™, the entire ratty and Rand-y pack, really hate is a Tall Poppy!

  62. #62 Karen
    April 29, 2013

    – You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

    – You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

    — You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

    — You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

    –You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

    — You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

    — You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a terrorist attack than to die from Global Warming (that is natural by the way)

    :)

  63. #63 Karen
    April 29, 2013

    lol…..I see that barnturd has got his head buried in the toilet again, could someone push the button please :)

  64. #64 Karen
    April 29, 2013

    Stinky Bill, the flatulent old taxi driver, gave me a link to one his favourite websites a couple of weeks ago, I just popped is for peek and found an encouraging tidbit for you all.

    New paper finds IPCC models predicted decrease in Antarctic sea ice, which is currently near record highs

    A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres finds “most climate models from the [IPCC] archive simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice area over the recent past,” however, “average Antarctic sea ice area is not retreating but has slowly increased since satellite measurements began in 1979.” Further, the authors find the latest generation of IPCC climate models “have not improved” over the prior generation, and “show an unrealistic spread in the mean state that may influence future sea ice behavior.”

    The paper, co-authored by Climategate co-conspirator Susan Soloman, attempts to save face for the models, claiming the increase in Antarctic sea ice is still within natural variability. With Antarctic sea ice currently near ‘unprecedented’ high levels, how long can this IPCC model flimflam persist?

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/new-paper-finds-ipcc-models-predicted.html

  65. #65 bill
    April 29, 2013

    What. A. Moron.

  66. #66 Jeff Harvey
    April 29, 2013

    “You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a terrorist attack than to die from Global Warming (that is natural by the way)”

    Try telling that to the 50,000 plus people who died during the massive heat wave that hit Europe in 2003, or the similar number that died in Russia in the 2010 heatwave. There’s certainly evidence that there has been a significant increase in weather-related disasters over the past 50 years, which, in combination, completely shred your (as usual) flippant argument.

  67. #67 Jeff Harvey
    April 29, 2013

    Karen, beaten mercilessly by other posters here, keeps wading back with more pure bilge. And she keeps reading the same shitty web sites for her worldview.

    Karen, we know how ignorant you are but do you ever give up? You are intellectually bankrupt. Go away, will you?

  68. #68 Karen
    April 29, 2013

    cough up the data numtie

  69. #69 bill
    April 29, 2013

    Leaving aside the issue of the typically sordid and gratuitous skidmark left on the thread above, here’s how the Bristol University is reporting Lewandowsky’s award from the Royal Society.

  70. #70 Wow
    April 29, 2013

    “— You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a terrorist attack than to die from Global Warming (that is natural by the way)”

    As usual from the denier idiots, a completely made up and patently ridiculous claim.

  71. #71 bill
    April 29, 2013

    You can’t even spell ‘numpty’, you numpty! And what frickin’ data, stuff pulled straight from a much abused lower colon, such as your invented statistic?

    What year is it, Karen? Can you tell the difference between degrees Celsius and Fahrenheit yet? Or is that one of those incalculable mysteries for you, like the tides for Bill O’Reilly?…

  72. #72 Karen
    April 29, 2013

    hehehe, I’m sure I seen stinkiee Bill’s dummy hit his monitor :)

  73. #73 BBD
    April 29, 2013

    Karen

    Yup, models wrong. Wrong about Arctic ice loss too. This is encouraging how, exactly?

    We are only just now beginning to get a handle on what is going on in Antarctica and it is deeply worrying.

    I have already posted this link on this thread, but you seem purely intent on trolling rather than actually reading anything. That’s a shame. If you read the links, you would learn interesting things and you would understand better how liars like Hockeyschtick misrepresent and deceive.

    When are you going to start getting angry with the people who have conned you, Karen? How can you be so placid about being hoodwinked? Me, I’d be furious; looking for blood.

  74. #74 BBD
    April 29, 2013

    Bernard J. # 50

    Many thanks for this. Most helpful.

    Unfortunately, it seems the old, country superstition may be correct: naming calls!

    ;-)

  75. #75 Jeff Harvey
    April 29, 2013

    This is how the denier mindset operates:

    Without 100% unequivocal proof of a process, there is no problem. This trick of the hand has been used to downplay links between acid precipitation and effects on freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, other forms of pollution and the health of ecosystems, and now on the link between atmospheric C02 concentrations and GW – as well as on extreme forms of weather that, when combined over many years, suggest that there may be a very strong link between these parameters.

    It doesn’t matter how much the climate changes in the coming decades, and how much changes in extreme weather events that have societal implications can be inferred from that. There will deniers like Karen saying that the proof is not absolute – therefore no absolute proof means no proof at all = no problem.

    I have dealt with so many ignoramus anti-environmentalists over the years that it becomes easy to see how their mindsets operate. Its easy to make a direct link between a terrorist bomb and the death of civilians, but directly linking a complex process like GW to human welfare is muc, much more difficult. Therefore, no problem.

    Karen is predictable because they ALL do it. This is straight from the anti-environmental handbook. Its kindergarten level stuff, really, but they always go back to it. Its easy to debate these morons because their tactics are so simple. The problem in debating them is that they routinely lie whereas honest scientists do not. And the vast majority of honest scientists are NOT climate change deniers. The deniers have nothing to lose by lying because they are not interested in the truth.

  76. #76 chek
    April 29, 2013

    – You are 17,600 times more likely to die waiting than find something correct at WTFUWT

    – You are 12,571 times more likely to wish to contract eyeball cancer than read another Goddard article

    — You are 11,000 times more likely to invent a spurious statistic than calculate a correct one

    — You are 1048 times more likely to throw yourself under a car than get an intelligent answer from KarenMackSpot

    –You are 404 times more likely to die of unadulterated boredom before seeing an intelligent point from KarenMackSpot

    — You are 87 times more likely to drown in your own lip sweat before wondering what the hockeyschtick thinks about anything

    — You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a rogue planetary attack than to expect KarenMackSpot to give up with the unending stream of persistent nonsense.

  77. #77 Karen
    April 29, 2013

    “We are only just now beginning to get a handle on what is going on in Antarctica and it is deeply worrying.”

    Be very carefull making statements like that in here BBd, they all have enough trouble sleeping, due to the booooggyy mann lol

    Oh.. BBd you must of missed this sweety :)

    http://www.tims.ntu.edu.tw/download/talk/20120917_2280.pdf

    Hug your teddy bear if it helps.

  78. #78 Jeff Harvey
    April 29, 2013

    The senior author on the presentation Karen cites is Mojib Latif. Here is what Professor Latif says about AGW:

    “…after being asked whether he was a climate sceptic, he explained that “If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily.”

    Karen obliterated again. Distorting the views of scientists to promote her own agenda. What else is new. Moreover, an increase in ice at the Antarctic IN NO WAY disproves AGW. The Antarctic is the world’s coldest place. Even a massive increase in temperature there would still mean that its usually well below freezing. At the same time, changes in precipitation could actually lead to an increase in the amount of ice: a critical point that in no way contrdicts AGW theory. At the same time, a recent study found that the rate of melting there is faster than at any time in hundreds of years.

    Karen: shot down again.

    Loser.

  79. #79 Karen
    April 29, 2013

    What study Jeeeffferie ?

  80. #80 Karen
    April 29, 2013

    “Karen: shot down again.

    Loser.”

    lol…the “presentation” wasn’t about global warming JeFFeRy

  81. #81 Nick
    April 29, 2013

    Karen, you’ve posted that fascinating presentation before, and seem to be at a loss about what it means, as ever.

    “lol..the “presentation” wasn’t about global warming..”

    Actually it is about the Southern Ocean at 50 to 70 degrees S ,possible long natural variation modes and influence on global warming. The presentation offers an influence on the pace of global warming,if the centennial mode and the proposed mechanism that powers it are real

    The band at lats 50 to 70S show little surface air warming over the last thirty years while further south and the whole planet northwards does. [there is an error in one of the graphics,the wrong sector is isolated by a colour band,but the text is right]

    SLR has risen and the ocean has warmed over the last few decades.

    Westerly winds in that zone have strengthened over the last few decades.

    A centennial mode is suggested by paleo work. Then mechanisms and locations of oceanic warming and heat transport with time frames are discussed.

    Antarctic sea-ice may continue to expand in winter extent,slowing the pace of global warming during the next few decades. By how much? After that, Kaz?

  82. #82 BBD
    April 29, 2013

    Well Karen, others have kindly clarified your understanding of your own link for you while I’ve been away. Let’s mind our manners and thank them for their efforts:

    Thank you Jeff Harvey and Nick!

    Remember, they probably have better things to do with their time than correct your nonsense, so you should be properly grateful!

    Now fuck off and read the link I provided for you. Learn something, you cretin.

  83. #83 BBD
    April 29, 2013

    Karen – physical climatology basics:

    Natural variability about long-term average does not create a long-term trend.

    For that, you need to force the system.

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    April 30, 2013

    If the Heartland Institute, instead of bandying the term “Lysenkoism” about in ways that indicate they have a complete disregard for the truth, wanted to actually discuss political control of science they might care to point out GOP desires to apply political pressure to the NSF grant process.

    Yeah, right.

  85. #85 FrankD
    April 30, 2013

    Nick – some good points there, but I have my doubts about: “Antarctic sea-ice may continue to expand in winter extent,slowing the pace of global warming during the next few decades.”

    Increased sea ice can slow warming only by increasing average albedo (reflecting more radiation out into space). But winter sea ice extent has no albedo effect, since there is no sunlight. If anything, increased winter sea ice adds to warming – its insulation effect traps heat in the ocean that would otherwise radiate out into the bitter Antarctic night.

    Increasing spring-summer extent does slow warming, but the upward trend for the three months straddling the summer solstice is less than the overall trend, which is relatively slight anyway, so its impact is very limited.

    Contrast with the situation in the Arctic where the greatest negative anomalies coincide with the maximum insolation, ensuring the dark ocean soaks up far more heat than would otherwise be the case.

    Sea Ice variation, taken globally or regionally, is not the deniers friend. Karen’s pathetic attempts to say otherwise have a 100% failure rate. This is no exception.

  86. #86 Vince Whirlwind
    Sydney
    April 30, 2013

    Heh – a colleague has just disabled our entire workspace by sending us a screen shot of the latest moronicness at the “Jo Nova” crank blog – some amazingly dimwitted “sceptic” crank calling himself “Crakar24″ is convinced abiogenic oil is real:

    crakar24
    April 29, 2013 at 3:28 pm · Reply

    KK,

    I still have trouble understanding how a dinosaur could lie 11K’s below the surface and turn into oil?

    Surely oil is abiotic or a majority is.

    and

    crakar24
    April 30, 2013 at 10:25 am

    For the love of F*&^%$%G God Margot, i asked a simple question…..if the deepest well is over 11Kilometers deep then how in the hell did the dead animals get there?

    You dismissed this idea by claiming that the wells were not that deep and rather this was the length of the well drilled at an angle (great way to avoid facing up to and responding to those pesky questions). Since then you have posted rant after rant.

    However i will not allow you and your fellow Troll the pleasure, so i ask again how did the dead animals get all the way down to that depth and keep in mind there is a lot of oil at these depths which means a lot of dead animals.

    Hahahaha – Jo Nova’s fans, as usual, never fail to please in the “absurd things to read after lunch” category.

  87. #87 Nick
    April 30, 2013

    #85, Frank, I was just sketching out the presentation’s points for Kazza. That potential continued expansion claim was in the work.

    It’s a good read,particularly the deep ocean water mechanisms. It’s a cautious account of research in progress. They suspect that the latitudinal band discussed will continue to lag in air temp increase for a while…this suggests to me that steepening temperature and pressure gradients between it and the tropics will make southernmost populated parts even more subject to dramatic weather. Whatever comfort Kaz saw in it of course is a product of mental frailty…and it’s the usual commonplace example of research into natural variability that puts the lie to idiot claims that NV is ignored by researchers.

  88. #88 BBD
    April 30, 2013

    Perhaps read the link at # 73?

    ;-)

  89. #89 Lionel A
    April 30, 2013

    some amazingly dimwitted “sceptic” crank calling himself “Crakar24″ is convinced abiogenic oil is real:

    Vince, Google on ‘Oil is Mastery’ and see what turns up. Pure ‘magic’.

  90. #90 bill
    April 30, 2013

    But Denial is not disproportionately composed of cranks, nutters and conspiracy theorists, of course.

  91. #91 chek
    April 30, 2013

    Lionel – that’s very funny in a scary kinda way.

    It seems there’s an entire crank-friendly army out there equipped with ‘braderised super-logic’ which is completely unencumbered by any grip on, or knowledge of, reality.

  92. #92 Betula
    April 30, 2013

    Harvey at his best….
    He goes on a 1 month trip and “experienced climate change first hand” because it was 12 degrees warmer than average while on that trip (yet they still froze their asses, even getting frostbite)
    Jeff: “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand. It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night.”

    So Jeff, you experienced climate change “first hand” based on a 1 month scale? Jeff, it seems that you are making a complete arse of yourself by suggesting that one month of above average temperature in Algonquin is somehow climate change “first hand”. Do you always base “first hand” climate change experience on such short scales, or just when you want to embellish?

    Note: Some of the above words are Jeffs own words (see #59). I just used them here to show what a hypocrite he is….it’s quite simple really.

    Also note: Jeffs response to this will not be an answer to the question, but rather that he gave a class somewhere, followed by talking about himself for several paragraphs and finally ending with a comment about how nobody can know what he knows…

    http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137

  93. #93 Lionel A
    April 30, 2013

    OK Betula adapt to this:

    Hurricane Sandy’s Untold Filthy Legacy: Sewage but best avoid getting caught up in situations like this SS Princess Alice (1865).

    Consider the role of Joseph Bazalgette who thought he had solved a problem. Sadly although many times more clever than you, he failed with the bigger picture and that is precisely where your little mind fails.

    Consider that recent studies have shown that sea levels are now rising faster than ever in recorded history and that more superstorms are being generated as we continue to warm the planet.

    Expect more sewage with your breakfast.

  94. #94 Betula
    April 30, 2013

    And let’s not forget…
    Cold weather is just weather, hot weather is climate….

    Chris @ 25…”Another day, another record. Melbourne just recorded its highest minimum for the 28th of April on record (except possibly since 1997)”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/04/29/cold-snowy-spring-weather/2121737/

  95. #95 Lionel A
    April 30, 2013

    bill,

    if oil were truly abiogenic one should ask why the US Navy is trying to produce jet fuel from seawater.

  96. #96 chek
    April 30, 2013

    The sound like two bricks clunking together could be Betty’s still functioning neurons trying to formulate a concept that AGW must never actually manifest itself in the real world.

  97. #97 Wow
    April 30, 2013

    Betula
    April 30, 2013

    And let’s not forget…
    Cold weather is just weather, hot weather is climate….

    If that’s what you want to believe, Betty, go ahead.

  98. #98 Wow
    April 30, 2013

    So, Betty, it’s not possible to know what climate is according to you.

    So you’re denying climate changes.

  99. #99 Lionel A
    April 30, 2013
  100. #100 Lionel A
    April 30, 2013

    Somewhere for Betula to learn stuff Jeff Masters’ Wunder Blog, somebody still engaged in science (unlike Lindzen eh Keyes of the Kingdom). Pay particular attention to this:

    Unusually cold spring in Europe and the Southeast U.S. due to the Arctic Oscillation,

    and stop your nonsense.